Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
nk.net:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

Gee,what's he got to hide?


To be fair, there may be nothing to hide. But not talking about it at
all suggests there is something to hide. With the way his campaign
has been going you can bet that if he believed it would help he'd be
talking about it everywhere.




That's the way I feel;that if it were nothing bad,he's be using it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
of the opposite.

Ed...to a lot of these people, just being there makes you guilty of a 'war
crime'.

Pete

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

My advice is don't run for political office.


Well, not as a Republican anyway.

It shows 5 years, 4 months and 5 days service out of a six year commitment.

It's amazing what people can believe if they want to believe it.

Bush served 11 months in the reserves after he was separated from the
National Guard. He served his six years, plus seven months.

In much the same way, I served six years in the reserves after I was
separated from the U.S. Army, to complete the then-eight-year
obligation.

Your discharge comes in the mail some time later. In my case, my name
was misspelled, probably by somebody with the mental acuity of the
poster quoted above.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:48 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:39:44 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his
men and warship to win the medals?

Isn't it hilarious how "stupidly and recklessly" impressed the awarding
authorities so much that they approved the award of a Silver Star and a
Bronze Star to him? But what do those jerks know, right? They were just
Navy captains and admirals.
George Z.

Dare we bring up LBJ's Silver Star?

When did you start needing my permission? But why do you want to compare a
Texas congressman on active duty with a 23 year old boat driver who, at that
point, had no markers out that he could call on for somebody to run
interference for him? Other than the piece of hardware that evolved,
aren't they apples and oranges? One was a field grade officer with
political clout and the other a green company grade guy. Or am I not
remembering it right?

George Z.

I think you aren't remembering it right. LBJ's service was hardly
"active duty" and the SS mission was absurd.

No argument there on either account. My point was that something like that
could and obviously did happen because the person involved had considerable
political clout and used it to get what he wanted.

My point was that medals vary. There are a lot of heroic events that
gain no award and a lot of awards that followed minimalist events.

No argument there, either. So let's take SSs, both his and yours, off the table
for discussion. Don't ask anyone to defend his and you don't need to defend
yours.

(Snip)
......My gripe is his conduct afterward which was clearly for political gain
and at
the expense of a lot of his "brothers" who were defamed by his statements.

You've articulated the views of those in opposition to his politics admirably.
Unfortunately, there are two sides to every coin and facts are only rarely
absolute. Those who agree with his politics might just as convincingly argue
that what he did was with the sincere intention of saving American lives by
getting our nation out of a war that we clearly were never going to win.

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....

If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might make
the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war
crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally don't care
to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that some people
might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel that way.

.....and served honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than
Kerry.

Length of service is supposed to prove what? That your two years was worth more
than the poor sod who stepped on a land mine his first day in theater and lost
two legs and an arm? Length of service ought play no part in the equation, and
I can't help but think that you must be getting a little desperate if you feel
obliged to introduce it into the discussion.

Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends of the
opposite.

I don't expect you to like him, and you obviously don't. That's always been
your privilege and it remains so. And it's everybody else's privilege as well.

George Z.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:15:41 GMT, "Pete" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
of the opposite.

Ed...to a lot of these people, just being there makes you guilty of a 'war
crime'.

Pete

And, those people don't mean squat to me. The ones that count are the
ones who know what went on during those times.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....

If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might make
the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war
crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally don't care
to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that some people
might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel that way.

"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.

Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
proscribed.

A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.

Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
a despicable level of hyperbole.

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/11/2004 7:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:15:41 GMT, "Pete" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
of the opposite.

Ed...to a lot of these people, just being there makes you guilty of a 'war
crime'.

Pete

And, those people don't mean squat to me. The ones that count are the
ones who know what went on during those times.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
at war?

On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
at war?

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

(OXMORON1) wrote in message ...
Tammy blurted:
I know that Kerry earned four or five medals for bravery under fire or
similar action. Does anyone know how many medals for heroism Cheney
and Bush earned. I heard that it was less than Kerry.

Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his men
and warship to win the medals? But, by gosh he secured that RPG launcher, even
if it was empty.
Plus, consider anyone who defames the Secret Service guy out there to protect
him, due to his own"skill" at snow sports, seems like a real ass who we really
need to run this country.
I also don't like his shoes! They flip flop a lot and are distracting.
Also while we are at it Hienz pickles suck!

oxmoron1
MFE

So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless. But
Bush is stupid and reckless, and didn't earn any medals.

Plus, consider anyone who defames the Secret Service guy out there to protect
him, due to his own"skill" at snow sports, seems like a real ass who we really

I believe that this rumor turned out to be yet another unsubstantiated
attack job by the GOPs. Do you have a legitimate source for this?

I also don't like his shoes! They flip flop a lot and are distracting.
I've never seen his shoes. I'm more interested in what a candidate
says and does than what kind of shoes he/she wears. But maybe you are
right. Considering Bush's screwups, maybe Bush should run on his shoes
(or at least in them).

Also while we are at it Hienz pickles suck!
I think I'll agree with you on this one (although I would probably
spell it "Heinz"). I bet they taste a lot better than Bush and
Cheney's oil. Perhaps Kerry should send Bush a case of pickles.
They're a lot safer that pretzels or whatever the current euphamism
for beer is.